A Working Definition of God

But this phrase... ...is simply wrong in the sense that you are trying to downplay the implications of "physical death" in the passage of Scripture in question.Furthermore, this is not a question of evolution vs. creation. It is a matter of clear catholic dotrine -- which you are distorting by making this statement.The passage in question, from a Catholic perspective, means that original sin of humanity...1) ...turned the "potential" of physical death for humanity into a "reality". In other words, it "allowed" the natural processes to take over......and...2) ...it also resulted in the "potential" of "spritual death" from then on.This to say, sin and death are certainly not the same thing. But one definitely opened the door for the other to happen -- at the local human level.Based on what you're saying above, it seems as though you're saying that the Catholic church is teaching that humanity would have died even if they hadn't sinned -- which is not at all an accurate statement according to the Catholic Church.Do you see what I mean?

My apologies Faith. I should have explained my position more clearly.I guess in this discussion usually the concept of man's dominion being related to having to "subdue" the animals often comes up... A quick perusal of the Scriptures seems to reveal much about the concept of subdual and the violence and death that often accompanies it.For example: Admitedly, if the world were a peaceful place before Adam and Eve arrive onto the earth, the concept of them having to subdue it (as clearly defined within the Scriptural passages presented above) seems to contradict this assertion.I confess that I might be wrong in this observation. However, all things considered, it seems to make a lot of sense to me that the world that Adam and Eve had to subdue was not a peaceful place outside the borders of the Garden of Eden.It seems reasonable that death was a natural part of the lifeforms that preceeded Adam and Eve's appearance on earth -- but that Adam and Eve were effectively "set apart" from death in the garden.Some would likewise suggest that in their initial phase they were essentially created immortal, being a little lower than the angels in their connection with God. Conversely, after their fall, some would suggest that they were now mortal, being slightly elevated from the animals in their ability to reason.That's how I see it anyway -- based on both Scriptures and Church tradition. Consequently, I do believe almost every aspect of what you've said here.My only concern comes up when noting that our future "glorified bodies" may still require sustenance.For example, the theophany that appeared before Abraham certainly didn't mind enjoying a meal -- this is to say, their spiritual bodies could still eat food.Consequently, when we look to the book of the apocalypse, we see something very similar to the Tree of Life residing there. Admittedly, like the Genesis account of Creation, I think the Book of the Apocalypse uses allegorical language to described things. However, nonetheless, I still think that the leaves of this tree (which may be symbolic of Christ himself) will be required nutrition to live in paradise.That's my thoughts anyway.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-22-2005 06:15 PM

Ok...I admit I'm as guilty as the others for deviating from the OP of this thread -- but Percy and Faith, could you guys please take this to a new thread?I'd really like to get back to the main thrust of our attempts to provide a Working Definition of God.

It's cool with me if it's cool with Dan.I just thought that Dan and Mammuthus might be interested in other things that I had in mind.But I digress.Wait a second. Am I digressing now? Or was I digressing before?

Which is what I already pointed out.But this isn't what you said before in reference to the Pauline passage. The Catholic interpretation of this verse is that it refered to both a spiritual death and a physical death.We differ from others in the sense that we believe that death was already present prior to Adam and Eve's transgression -- and that their "original sin" open the door to death to claim them. Yes, symbolic and allegorical language is present -- for example, the days of creation are almost certainly not refering to literal 24 hour days.Likewise, it is almost rest assured that more than 6,000 years have transpired since the "event" in the "garden" -- whatever "garden" means.However, according to Catholic doctrine, Adam and Eve were still literal people who transmitted literal sin to their literal descendants -- and that's us my friend. But I'm not trying to defend Faith's understanding of the Scriptures. I've already politely expressed where I felt we disagreed.No offence, Faith, but there are some things that you've stated that I simply do not agree with...but my bringing this up is not to dispariage your view.Coming back to the point however, what I am trying to defend, paisano, is what you are refering to as "splitting hairs" -- which is not splitting hairs. Its taking a very careful look at our Catholic doctrine and comparing your statement to it.You seem to be implying that Adam and Eve are fiction according to Catholic dogma (and I apologize in advance if I'm incorrect), but the Catholic Church strictly teaches that they were very real people.For example, the article goes on to say: Consequently, the "full quote" of the Catechism states: I've bolded the part you left out before.Personally, if I'm understanding your position correctly, I think you're taking some liberties with doctrine here that Catholics are actually not advised to do.It doesn't matter if evolution was used to form our bodies or not. It doesn't matter if Adam and Eve's name wasn't actually Adam and Eve.But it does matter that humanity had two real parents from which all human life proceeded and inheritted original sin from. That is a Catholic dogma that is not up for debate.For example, in the area of theology, the Magisterium has warned against the teachings of the French paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who concocted from evolutionary theory a kind of process theology that, among other things, implicitly denies original sin and the existence of first parents of the human race who differed in kind from whatever may have preceded them.Also, as noted above, in Humani Generis, Pius XII condemned polygenism, championed by Teilhard, Rahner and other theologians, which holds that we are descended from multiple ancestors rather than from one historical person named Adam (no. 37).I'm sure that we both agree that the Church insists that man is not an accident; that no matter how he went about creating Homo sapiens, God from all eternity intended that man and all creation exist in their present form.However, as an article at Catholic.net net notes: I just thought I should clarify these points. And, as a Catholic brother, I apologize in advance if I've offended you in any way -- or insinuated anything that you didn't actually intend.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-23-2005 06:55 AM

Percy...chill...out...please...You're basically insinuating that Faith needs to study doomsday cults which have lead to terrible attrocities in order to understand her own position in regards to the Scriptures -- which is seriously in error on your part.Like you, I too agree that God hears all prayers -- including the Muslim, the Unitarian, the Buddhist, and the athiest in their quiet and private moments of personal doubt of materialism. But I don't see how casting Faith's perspective on the Scriptures to the same level as James Jones will accompish anything but increased insensitivities toward other faith systems.I've explained this very carefully -- and will do so in more detail if you wish. But I for one am getting very tired of the crap which you keep slinging in Faith's direction.If she wants to express her belief that it is only Christ who saves -- I too will agree with her. The difference between her and I is that I believe that their are many paths to Christ -- but that Christ is still the only way to the Father.Cardinal Francis Arizne demonstrates with clarity the Catholic position in regards to Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue: An extremely good article can be found here if you are indeed interested in some Christians views in regards to other religions:Magid | Safety at workIn short, it must be stressed that the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in other religions. The church has a high regard for their conduct in so far as she believes the Spirit is moving them according to the Lord's will. This high regard also includes those precepts and doctrines found within other religions which, although differing on many points from that which the church believes and propounds, often reflects a ray of the truth which enlightens all men.For example, theologians have noted similarities in primitive beliefs in an All-Powerful God. On the subject of human religion, some scholars have claimed that human history exhibits an evolution in religion -- from tribal gods to monotheism. These results, however, have been largely turned on their head.Contrary to this 'evolutionary' position, the lifetime work of Wilhelm Schmidt (published in his Origin and Growth of Religion: English Ed. 1931) found that, thoughout the world, primitive cultures have a notion of a supreme god. This god has the following characteristics - remarkably uniformly across the world: In tracing human history, it is generally believed that the primal knowledge of the Lord was often supplanted in religions by concepts of gods which are "more accessible." In doing such, the gradual monotheistic knowledge of a monotheistic God seems to deteriorate into a pantheon of divinities whose attirbutes seems to be defined more by nature and/or human characteristics.Even still, despite this supposed deterioration, these religions often carry a distant memory of this "Sky-God" whom they have lost most contact with.He is sometimes, on the surface, either perceived as 1) no longer caring or 2) so omniscient -- since he already hears and sees everything -- that there is no reason to talk to him.More specifically, with further inviestigation, he is often referred to as Father. Within this paternal context, he is generally conceived in one of three ways; either as 1) a transcendent principle of divine order; 2) a senile or impotent deity who has been replaced by a set of other, more active and involved gods; or finally 3) he has become so remote, having removed himself so far from human affairs, that he is all but forgotten.The obvious response to all these traits, when presented more respectably, is, "Where have I heard that before?" The more obvious answers is that it sounds suspiciously like the Christian, Hebrew and Muslim concept of God.It becomes, in the minds of many catholics, even clearer when one notes the various concepts expressed in religions around the world. As many critics have noted, there are many pre-Christian religions and philosophies which teach doctrines which bear a striking resemblance to doctrines within the church.Although some similarities are certainly hyperbole or exaggeration of the part of the critic, such as most of those commonly attributed to the cult of Mithras, there are yet certainly more than a fair share of similarities to Christianity expressed in some ancient religions.When applicable, the Catholic Church tends to view these similarities in the sense of a kind of dialectic process leading to the re-emergeance of a faith that once existed in its fullness in the beginning but was lost to our first two parents long ago.That's the Catholic Belief.

Could you explain this paragraph a bit more? I'm not sure I understand it. I have read it actually. But I will read it again to make sure I'm understanding it clearly.

I just seemed as if you were leaning well into personal attack territory with some of your statements and examples. If Faith expresses a belief that it is only through Christ that people are saved, this shouldn't be assumed to be a personal attack -- it is simply Faith expessing a denomination's theology.However, if one turns around and starts accusing Faith (the person) about how closed-minded they are for holding this view, then it is becoming a personal attack. I think I agree more with your theology than Faith's in regards to Christ's saving nature for "all people". However, I do not agree with insulting Faith (the person) by accusing the poster of being shallow minded or even suggesting ignornace for holding to a particular doctrine.One could express confusion. One could express concern. One could reasonably divide thier theology into distinct components where a contridictory nature might be apparent. I think all religions, including my own, have inherited at least some degree of cognitive dissonance.However, when one attacks the person instead of the idea -- then I feel they are flinging crap at another person and ruining the impact of their own message (no matter how well expresed their thoughts might be). She didn't. I did. With a clear distinction being made though.I'm not sure if Faith makes an appeal to Natural Law or not -- but some Christian denominations do. The basic idea is that people cannot be held accountable for things that they are simply not aware of.In my own view, Christ, on a spiritual level, is certainly the "door" to heaven -- and that there is no other way to the Father...period.However, I wouldn't interpret this to the point that I suspect that only those who proclaim with their mouth, "Jesus is Lord!" are the only ones who are being "saved".I cannot speak for Faith, but Faith and I probably disagree on this matter. It's not my place to deny salvation -- so this point is not sustainable.However, if you are asking, "Can someone who doesn't believe in Christ go to heaven?" I would answer with certainty, "Of course they can."Or, if you are asking, "Can someone who rejects belief in Jesus Christ go to heaven?" then I would be less certain of making any definitive statements according to what my Catholic faith teaches.Instead of bashing non-Christians over the head with the Scriptures while utilizing a McDonald's salvation mentality of "Over 1 Billion Saved," I would rather look toward those things which Christians and other faiths share in common and focusses on those positive things in order to lead them to Christ.The Book of James states plainly: Clearly, if one is doing "good" in the sight of God, it is because their conscience is not closed to God's "still small voice" and God has moved them by the Holy Spirit do so. Taking the example of the Good Samaritan to heart, this is found to be true regardless of whether the person doing good is Christian or not.Does this "goodness" constitute salvation?I honestly do not have a clear answer for this and therefore will leave that for theologians to debate (although I have many thoughts onthe matter). When in doubt, one should always consult their own pastor, priest or elder in order to clarify a Scriptural position from their own denominational view-point.I will, however, note one thing and comment on this appropriately:Actions speak louder than words.Compassion, when aligned by the Holy Spirit, it the compass of our soul. A person can claim to be Christian and still not have salvation. In fact, their actions often render the words spoken by them nearly void and leaves the name of God blasphemed amongst the non-believers.In short, if God is not exalted, it is usually (but not always) because we have personally failed to witness God's love in a kind manner prompted by the Holy Spirit -- not because the listener was unwillinng to listen.Paradoxically, those who are closest to God often possess the greatest potential to inflict evil onto the world. This seems to especially happen whenever those whom should know better either don't or simply refuse to.Examples come to mind, such as Judas Iscariot, whom personally walked with and was instructed by the Lord for at least three years, or the adversary himself, whom was once the most beautiful of all angels within God's Celestial hierarchy. Both fell from Grace at exceptionally high points in their walk with the Lord and both "falls" had exceptionally high repercussions due to their close proximity to God.Coming toward the concept of heaven and us entrering it through Christ, it seems as though at the end of time God will weigh each person's life in the balance of their own conscience in relation to Christ.This is to say, I believe each person will be called upon to give an account of how Christ has "manifested" in their lives, whether by thought, word or deed -- with each person being held accountable in proportion to what has been revealed to them.I believe that those who have willingly rejected his revelation from those who "lovingly" displayed his truth will have much to answer for. In addition to this, it also seems to me that those who have led others astray will retroactively pay for the sins of those who who they have led astray.The difference in this retroactive payback is determined by Christ's sacrifice on the cross. All sin eventually points to the adversary. In the end, it seems to me that Christ will remove the sin from those who are saved and place it squarely back onto the adversary.The adversary desired to be God in his own right, and in the end when God separates all things clean and unclean (leaving the adversary totally separated from God), he will allow the adversary to have exactly want he wants.However, since the adversary is not God, he will lack the power to sustain the unsaved who are clinging to him, his children that have looked to him for "salvation." He will also lack the power to sustain his portion of the Cosmos left void of God's presence.In the end, without God's sustaining grace, evil will implode and annihilate itself. Paradoxically, since the soul exists forever, this annihilation will likewise last forever.This, to me, is what I picture hell to be like. And I believe this will be done through the blood of the Resurrected Christ which was shed on the cross and given literally to us for the remission of our sins.Indeed, it is already finished. We just haven't seen it come to its fullness yet -- in my faith anyway, this will come on the Last Day at the "end of time itself".

Because you're looking at "all gods". I specifically said primitive sky gods.repeat: primitive...sky...gods...Wilhelm Schmidt, a Jesuit professor at the University of Vienna, spent over 40 years (1912-1955) documenting and compiling evidence for what he called "primitive monotheism." In 1931 he published his findings as The Origin and Growth of Religion. It was a book that revolutionized the study of religious anthropology.Schmidt thought that such beliefs were the residue of a "primal revelation" of God to man. He felt that they were surviving forms of a once common knowledge of the one God (which through human fallenness and error has been overlaid by magic, animism, ancestor worship, spiritism, polytheism, and other forms of spiritual subjectivism). Schmidt continued to validate his thesis with continual research over the years. By 1955 he had published over 4000 pages of evidence in 12 large volumes.G. K. Chesterton summed up the import of Schmidt's ground-breaking studies: Primitive theologies of the one God always seemed to include some explanation of why He is no longer present. His departure is routinely regarded as a cosmic disastrous rupture in the natural fabric of things brought on by some fault or failure on the part of human beings. In some myths, the fault seems almost trivial, involving a technical error in the performance of some (now) obscure ritual, thus causing the universe to unravel and leave man spiritually marooned. In other forms of primitive monotheism, the failure is more morally serious, involving man's betrayal of his duty to his creator, thus causing God to depart in sorrow and judgment.The details differ, but all the myths tell a common story, and the story seems to be clearly a part of our common heritage. Ironically, the evidence of anthropology indicates that ancient man was more in agreement concerning the nature of our spiritual problem than we have agreed about anything since that time. The reason is seems (to me) doubtless that their consensus was one of memory and not of opinion.Schmidt's work actually uncovered one momentous fact for all to see -- namely, that humanity's most ancient and universal assessment of its own condition is simply this: "God is not with us." For whatever reason, God's personal presence has been withdrawn from us. God's absence is our problem.Bascially what I see is a diaspora of some original form of primitive monotheism. The reason why I say this is because massive evidence has been collected among many peoples since the discovery in the 19th century of an unsuspected belief in "one supreme being, All-Father".As just one example, consider the Kurnai in Australia. These kinds of discoveries, among many, revolutionized modern scholarly understanding of primitive religion in two ways:First, many of the peoples which had been thought to have no concept of religion at all were discovered instead to embrace belief in a single, all powerful deity. In fact, such peoples actually had a sophisticated religion, but it simply lacked public rituals. The theology in such cases was esoteric and in general it was something that was not to be spoken of to outsiders. Many reports, therefore, of primitive religions, had been limited to the observation of the external details of cult practice, but the existence of the High God challenged the adequacy of such reports and suggested that, in many cases, if the observer himself had not been "initiated" his report was not to be trusted.Secondly, and of even greater significance, the discovery of the High God concept among primitive peoples challenged the popular 19th century theory of the evolution of religion from animism (belief in souls in humans and other aspects of nature) to polytheism to monotheism. Instead, a devolutionary approach seemed to be the more reasonable.To clarify what I am trying to convey, consider the following: Consequently, there are actually at least two books within the Scriptures which seem to indicate the Hebrews encounters with the "primitive sky god".For example: Also, within the definitive Hebrew Scriptures we see a "pagan" worshipping the Most High God? Dr. Wilhelm Schmidt actually set out in the 1920's to compile every "alias of the Almighty" discovered by explorers around the world. A minimum of a thousand more examples have come to light since then.In short, an approximate 90 percent or more of the folk religions on this planet contain clear acknowledgment of the existence of one Supreme God.Schmidt's classic "Der Ursprung der Gottesidee" (The Origin of the Concept of God) was actually published back in 1934.I would advise you to check it out sometime when you have a chance.

To Dan and Mammuthus:I guess in appealing to some outside source for designing Creation, I'd have to provide at least some examples of an outside force interacting with it -- or a raw basic force in itself.At the most basic level, I look at magnetism. This is a raw force. Although it is not sentient, it is capable of some amazing things. We can potentially see and/or feel its effects everywhere. We can even produce it on demand. Although electrical forces seem to be involved in magnetism's manifestation, we technically don't know what magnetism is. It is something which has "no substance" but routinely affects our lives on a daily basis.When I read about the various Big Bang and Quantum theories, I periodically come across the concept that time and space has more dimensions that we can perceive. Some suggest the Big Bang resulted from an influx of energy from a higher dimension. Some suggest that at the heart of Quantum mechanics lies the basis of String Theory -- which suggests both an influx and outflux of energy into higher dimensions.It's interesting to note that an electron (or other particle) can disappear in one location and simultaneously reappear at another location if the wave associated with the particle extends to the other location. This property of nature is so pervasive that even in totally empty space, particles pop in and out of existence. This is known as the vacuum polarization, apparently because they appear as equal and opposite charges, a dipole. Not found Bearing these things in mind, it seems highly likely that there are some dimensions that extend beyond what we can currently measure. Also, bearing the recent knowledge of the particles being observed waving "in and out" of existence, I would even postulate that this is a good indication that this universe was either a) formed out of, or b) is currently merged with something higher. Since, in theory, the higher seems to predate the lower, I would postulate that that the lesser came from the greater.I can't prove this. But the reason why I suspect that this "outside agent" is highly involved with the creation of our universe is due to the observation that what seems to be coming and going from a higher dimension resembles the basic building blocks of our universe.The subatomic particles that make up each atom and each element are colorless, tasteless, orderless and without texture. They are not hard, soft, dull, or shiny -- even though the naturally known occuring elements make up everything that exists on Earth (including us). The "firmness" and other characteristics of this "stuff" seems to result from the interelationship of electrical forces of (and between) these very same subatomic particles -- similar to particles which have been observed popping in and out of existence.What I'm getting at is that matter in its most fundamental form consists solely of these electrical charges. As a matter of opinion, this substance from "nothing" that results when electrical charges combine to from atoms (and when atoms combine to form elements and molecules), would probably qualify as the greatest illusion there is -- except it is reality. Technically speaking, everything is made ex nihilo (and it seems to be linked to outside forces).Coming back to the possibillity of higher dimensions, if this is so, then what's up there? Personally, I don't know the answer to this. But coming back to the creator needing a creator, etc., I guess I look at it this way:If all things indeed were created from an outside force, then what are the characteristics of the outside force? If that force has been around forever, then the things that were created by it would most likely share that same characteristics. However, since the created thing now resides in a lower state of being (or dimension), the created thing lacks the stability of its creator. If something goes wrong within the created thing -- its "eternal connection" becomes removed somehow -- it seems to me that the created thing would tend to break down and either a) return to its source, or b) degrade into its environment to the point that its "created form" becomes void.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-23-2005 09:30 PM

No Faith, and this is where I sharply disagree with many of my Christian brothers. I strongly believe that the Lord judges in proportion to what has been revealed to the individual. The more He reveals to the individual, the more is expected of them.I have a couple of Baptist friends who have explained to me at length about the concept of an "age of accountability". It basically implies that those who are too young to understand will simply not be judged. Although there are some differences regarding the adminsitration of the sacrament of Baptism, personally, I agree with them to a great extent regarding the age of accountability concept. As a matter of fact, I'd extend this definition to include those who simply don't know -- an "awareness of accountability".I don't think this is blasphemous.For example: Let me put it another way. Many Christians are now trying to say that many paths lead to God. I would tend to disagree. I'd say many paths lead to Jesus, who I believe is true God and true man.Getting to the point, I do suspect that "some" Christians are probably not going to heaven. I also suspect that "more" non-Christians probably will go to heaven than many Christians are willing to admit.I guess I see it as James says, Peter gives a strong warning to Christians here (it is actually directed to unbeleivers too indirectly), As far as unbelief goes, Paul, who personally saw to the murder of many Christians, says, He also sums it up this way, Look, if athiests get married, I believe their marriage is a manifestation of Christ in their lives regardless of whether they acknowledge him or not.Why?Because it's God will that people get married.If an athiest gives birth to child, I believe that child is a manifestation of Christ in her life regardless of whether she acknowledges him or not.Why?Because, regardless of what she beleives, children are a gift from God.Taking this one step further, I believe this is also true regardless of whether she is married or not.Why?Because, regardless of what some ultra-conservitive Bible-Thumper thinks, children are a gift from God -- single mother or not (which is totally irrelevant as far as the love for her child is concerned).(I have more thoughts on this, but I'll hold it back for now)This is not to say that these people can earn their way into heaven via "good works". I'm stessing my belief that every good and perfect gift comes from God above (who doesn't change like shifting shadows). Doing God's will, even if you don't believe in him, is still a manifestation of His grace nonetheless.Some people take the Scriptures so literally and say that you have to confess Christ with your lips -- and that's it. Yet Jesus himself said, In short, I think that many people confess Christ by their thoughts, words and deeds, even the ones who don't know him. And I'm basing this on the Scriptures and Church tradition.For me, knowing that Christ is Lord is not the same thing as saying that only people who believe in Christ are going to heaven. Or, put in another way, believing that Christ is true God and true Man is not the same as saying that one's faith is a sure ticket out of hell. I don't usually bring up the subject of hell (and yes, I do believe in hell), but since people seem to be implying that this is being dangled over the head of non-believers, I thought I'd add my two cents worth. For the most part, at least when hell is mentioned, I think the non-believers are correct.The concept behind the Christian faith as I understand it is that of a revelation from God. Most people don't think of it in that way, and this is fine. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or convert anyone. However, in thinking about the meaning of a revelation, I've personally come to the conclusion that many people do not know what they are talking about concerning Christ's love. I think that many people who do not ackowledge Christ in word nonetheless believe in him by their actions. There's been many times where I've noticed a "non-believer" shows more compassion than the "believers" -- which is very disturbing to me.One quote that really expresses this for me is perhaps that of Ghandi: In trying to express this clearly, I will say the following from the context of my own Judeo-Christian faith.As far as I can determine, the very Early Church was not so much concerned with informing people that they were going to hell if they didn't believe in Christ. They were more concerned with the "revelation" that Christ was hidden within the Judaic Scriptures all along. This was the excitement that captured the central focus of the very Early Church.Likewise, whereas they acknowledged that Christ was indeed the only savior by which one could enter heaven, they did not (as far as I can determine) deny that Christ would save someone who didn't know him personally. The joy that they had was one of finally knowing "who done it" all this time and announcing this boldly to anyone willing to listen, not one of some esoteric secret society that carefully guarded it's "revelation" and revealed it only to those "who are worthy".Admittedly, persecution of the Early Church via many Roman Emporers probably hardened the hearts of many early believers. I'm also sure that some had a death-wish well before they became Christians -- and saw the persecution of the Church as a quick way out of their living hell of a life on earth. But, for the most part, if any secrecy or covert action was was engaged, it was because there were really people out their trying to kill them.I know that this is a touchy subject, so I'm going to explain this as carefully as I can.It just seems to me that a certain very smug sense of self-righteousness has crept into the Church over the last 2000 years. In fact, personally, I have no doubts at all about this. As a Catholic, I also believe that we are just as responsible for this self-righteousness as any other denomination (so I'm not trying to pick on any particular faith here).Very often I've noticed that some Christians use the concept of hell as a lure to catch unbelievers into believing in Christ. I think, personally, that this is akin to a spiritual form of terrorism: either believe in Jesus or go to hell -- it's your choce (which really isn't any choice at all). When people do this, I'm personally offended because it seems to me that it's like shoving a shot gun down someone's throat until their gag-reflex kicks in. Under this kind of "conversion", it leads to the newly converted vomiting their faith onto other non-believers -- their witness toward Christ's love is more like bile that has been trembled upward out of fear and loathing (in my honest opinion).This make me very sad.Even when the concept of prayer comes up, I'm sometimes left confused. People seem to think that prayer is about changing God's mind. While I've no doubt that God has changed his mind (at least, as far as I'm able to determine from the Scriptures), I don't think that we should be so smug as to think that we are changing it through prayer.I think of prayer as a silent and safe form of prophesying. I know people will snicker when hearing this word "prophesying", but I feel that I need to mention it. Within the Judaic Scriptures it seemed as though there were many guidelines made available to the Hebrews to determine when somone was a false-prophet of not. Prophesying is not the act of changing God's will. It is the experience of a direct connection with God's will whereby the person talking to God receives a revelation of what God's will is. I think the same thing holds true with prayer -- except, you won't be stoned to death if your prayers are not answered.For example, there's a passage in the Book of James which says the following: Many people (including Christians) that I speak with take this to mean that if you pray really, really, really, really hard -- then your prayers will come true. But I don't think this is what it's saying at all. As far as I'm able to determine, God was going to do or allow all these things anyway (regardless of the prayers involved) -- especially in the case of Elijah.The comfort from prayer, at least as far as my own experience is concerned, is not one of knowing that I've changed God's mind. It is more one of comfort that God is listenting and is interested in what I have to say -- which is pretty cool considering, y'know, he's Almighty God. It's also a comfort when one prays and notes that the prayer actually happened -- because one then knows that they were in tune with God's will (as far as I'm concerned). It's about love and forgiveness.The mentality of the message given by the person who witnesses their faith can directly impact how the receiver receives the Gospel message. If the message is broadcast with hatred, then the receivers will most likely reject it.In short, if we force our faith onto others harshly, and they reject it, the Lord's name is then blasphemed because of our actions -- not theirs. In these instances, I wouldn't hold accountable someone who rejected the Christian faith. I'd be more interested in what the "witness" did to the unbeliever to push them away from Christ.Unfortuantely, although I fully agree that the Church has a God-given mandate to forgive others and teach forgiveness, it does not have an immunity to error in their actions. Even though I fully agree that Catholocism has the best doctrine in regards to Christ, I don't think this makes us immune to human failure (except in the special case of infallibility and indefectibility).Too often I've noticed that the ability to forgive others means being without sin. I agree with this to the extent that if we fogive, then a multitude of sins are covered. But if this is pushed in the direction that being able to forgive sins make one immune to the ability to sin in the first place, then I'm not going with it.Christians are human too. If we push people away from Christ, then Christ will hold us accountable for their actions. Similarly, In his famous parable of the last judgment in Mathew 25, Christ clealy states that what do or fail to do to the poor and the sick, and more generally to those in need, we do or fail to do to him.This, in my veiw, is very similar to how Christ took on our sins -- albeit pefectly and without sin. He took accountability for our actions out of love. But, since he is true God and true man, his sinless, immortal, and divine soul utterly oblitterated any sin that held humanity away from God. I suppose one could say that he stretched out his arms on the cross -- with one arm pointing all the way towards humankind's past, and one arm pointing all the way to humankind's future.This here quotation from the book Distinctly Catholic (which was considered required reading for a Catholic course that I voluntarilly took part in at our church) fairly well sums up my thoughts on the matter: I've never said. "It doesn't matter if you're a good person, you'll go to Hell if you don't follow my religion." I've been saying the opposite of this as far as I can tell and this opinion, as I've expressed plainly within this thread, frankly disgusts me. In some ways, I've found people who hold this mentality are not much different from vaccuum cleaner salesmen or ambulance chasers. They try their hardest to get their foot in the door to prove to you that you need this -- or they cruise the streets on the look out for an accident so that they cash in on someone's misfortune.I also have defintely not said, "You'll only be a good person if you follow my religion." Again, this comes back to the above statements. I feel that this self-righteous mentality has deeply divided the Church on many levels. I'd tather look at the universal agreement of the various religions of the world which in one way of another seems to stress mankind's duty to their neighbor, brother, SO, etc. I suppose I'm looking more towards a natural theology or an invocation of natural Law when I express this opinion.You are coming closer to my personal view when you say, "It doesn't matter if you follow my religion, the important thing is to be a good person." My own convictions regarding this are simple: If someone is doing good in God's eyes, it's because they're being moved by the Holy Spirit to do so. I'd also go one step further and say that is almost irrelvant whether someone is aware of Christ's love in their life or not.If a Buddhist saves the life of a child, and this hasn't been done for selfish reasons, then it's an action of the Holy Spirit in their lives. If an atheist gives birth to a child, that child is still a gift from God.Not acknowledging Christ in their lives in no way changes the fact that their child is a gift from God either. If one sees a child starving and hungry, and they feed that child without any selfish motivations behind their actions, then God is at work in them.However, if one rejects what Christ has called one to do by the Holy Spirit, then I'd say there could be some trouble brewing.It's as simple as that as far as I'm concerned.At least, from my own Judeo-Christian view, Christ is fully aware of who is doing his will and who is not. Paying lip service to him and condeming others for not believing in him seems to be far removed from what his central message actually consisted of. And it is the "self-righteous, condemning" mentality within the Church (a mentality that I'd suggest is virtually anti-Christian) that I'm trying to express my frustration with.One can certainly give praise to Christ as Lord and Savior (and witness their faith to others) without condeming those who don't believe in him in the process.That's my thoughts on it anyway. This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-23-2005 09:12 PM

Faith, my point is that I believe that Christ put them there in the first place. The general belief is that the Christian has the advantage over others in knowing who their savior really is -- they don't have to grope around in the dark trying to find out where their salvation is coming from anymore.This is why, in my opinion, the Scriptures come down harshly on those who should know better -- such as teachers within the Church itself. In other words, there's never been a time when Christ wasn't actively saving people.The difference between "us" and "them" is not that they're sinners and we're not. We know full well that we are sinners -- just like the rest of the world. The real difference, as far as I can tell, is that we know our redemeemer -- and we know our redeemer lives.This is what we need to share with others. We need to proclaim Christ as Lord.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-23-2005 09:41 PM

I think it might be relevent though in the sense of properly defining what "God" is. Dan and other have rightly commented on the different perceptions of God as portrayed from culture to culture. If we are to present a clear image of what God is so that he can compare and contrast the different claims, many of these points are bound to require some concrete definition.At the very least, he can compare the different thoughts to each person's concept of what God is in order to test for some sort of continuity.I admit it is a substantial digression, but it does seem relevent to the discussion on a peripheral sense.These discussions all seem to come back to the words in the Scriptures which describe qualities of him. Certainly these are qualities that the church and the early fathers would have no trouble employing (ie, Sacred Tradition).For example: I suppose, in looking for an analogy, God would be like the light that iluminates, etches, and reveals a hologram. The hologram without light represents the universe -- and it has no image within it unless God's light shines in and illuminates it appropriately.For example, according to Michael Talbot (reputedly), a hologram is a three-dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. This could be symbolic of the Father illuminating his pattern for creation.Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. This could be symbolic of the Son -- who in the Father's actually created all things.When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears. This could be symbolic of the Holy Sprit -- which reveals all things in the Father and the Son.Consequently, the three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image.Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole. The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram may provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order.For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.A hologram may teach us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 12:00 AMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 06:25 AM

A word of caution in regards to the evidence {or lack thereof} for the Red Sea event.On the one hand, faith is claiming (I think) that the Scriptures (as a testimony to those "eye-witnesses" who observed the event) represents at least one body of possible evidence.I tend to agree with this -- however it needs to be examined carefully in the light of whatever archeological records are available in order to validate it.Expressed simply, many people feel that they are trusting the testimony of people who actually existed -- people who have proven modern researchers wrong before.For example, in the past detractors often accused Isaiah of having made a historical mistake when he wrote of Sargon as king of Assyria within the Scriptural record found in Isaiah 20:1. For years, in fact, this remained the sole historical reference -- secular or biblical -- to Sargon having been linked with the Assyrian nation. Due to this lack of evidence, many critics assumed Isaiah had simply erred in his account of history.However, in 1843, Paul Emile Botta, the French consular agent at Mosul, working with Austen Layard, unearthed historical evidence that established Sargon as having been exactly what Isaiah said he was -- king of the Assyrians.At Khorsabad, Botta discovered Sargon’s palace. Pictures of the find may be found in Halley’s Bible Handbook (1962, p. 289). Apparently, from what scholars have been able to piece together from archaeological and historical records, Sargon made his capital successively at Ashur, Calah, Nineveh, and finally at Khorsabad, where his palace was constructed in the closing years of his reign during c. 706 B.C. The walls of the palace were actually adorned quite intricately with ornate text that described the events of his reign.Today, an artifact from the palace a forty-ton stone bull (slab) is on display at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute -- which is quite a weightly evidence of Sargon’s existence. Within this "historical sense", Isaiah had been correct all along -- and, likewise, the critics who often derided his account in the Scriptures had been wrong -- all along.Although there are other examples that I could point out, I think this simple example demonstrates the mindset of many Christians that hold to a more literal account of the creation event here at Creation Vs. Evolution forums.In other words, although science is claiming that evolution can account for the speciation of all life as we see it on earth (and perhaps it can), many creationists feel that further evidence is coming which may disprove the grander claims of the facts of evolution.Admittedly, in situations like this, these are matters of faith for them. But, having said this, it is a matter of faith that, in their minds, is worth holding onto in the hopes that God will someday vindicate their belief.Coming to the Red Sea event, however, we do need to be cautious before proclaiming that there will never be evidence to sufficiently prove the event happened -- and that the only thing we can rely on is the Scriptural record for its verification.For example, as noted within Bill McGuire's book Raging Planet, if one is looking for "purely physical mechanisms" to explain Scriptural events, then the parting of the Red Sea may have been the waters withdrawing prior to the arrival of a deadly tsumani triggered by the volcanic obliteration of Thera.As noted by McGuire, tree ring analysis shows that the year 1626 B.C. was much colder than normal, hindering plant growth in Europe and and North America and resulting in the formation of thinner rings of new wood.The unusually cold conditions were not simply the result of our planet's capricious climate, but were caused by the gargantuan volcanic explosion that shattered the Greek island of Thera -- now more commonly known as Santorini. The huge blast -- one of the most violent ever recorded in the Mediterranean -- is charged by some scientists and archeologists with contributing to the fall of the great Minoan civilization, which althogh centered on Crete, also had settlements on Thera.McGuire goes on to say that geological studies supported by computer modelling suggest that the earth-shattering blast generated tsunami that sped out across the entire eastern Mediterranean. It now seems likely that the coast of Northern Crete, which hosted most og the Minoan settlements, was scoured by huge waves up to 330 feet high, dealing a devastating blow to the seafaring nation.It is interesting to note that the destruction of Thera may indirectly account for some details of the Hebrew Scriptures depiction of the Egyptian plagues. In fact, the timing is just about right.Some have suggested that accounts in Exodus of three days of darkness might reflect heavy ash fall, while the "river of blood" might be the massive rafts of pink Theran pumice.While I find the pumice theory to be less than adequate or even silly, I feel that the idea behind the "three days of darkness" may yet have much merit.Regardless of whether these two theories can explain these particular aspects of the Egyptian plagues, perhaps more intriging, the receding waters from the marshy northern end of the Red Sea might have offered the Israelites an escape route before the tsunami rushed back to drown the pursuing Egyptian soldiers.I guess it depends on how literal one reads the passage. For example, some would read the River of Blood Plague to read something like "And the Lord God caused the river to turn into real blood, blood which began to coagulate -- and it's blood type was a combination of A+ with O-."I do tend to think that the Plagues of Egypts were more supernatural than purely natural -- and to this extent it may be difficult to prove anything concretely.However, if Egypt fell in some violent conflagration of curses, I would expect to find some documented evidence somewhere that would confirm this event. Certainly other nations that traded with Egypt should have some record of their downfall -- or dip in economic influence -- as such an event would likely affect their own economies as well.Likewise, if the Red Sea did indeed part and then crash back onto the Egyptian soldiers -- one should expect to find some artifacts of the Chariots in the waters. Some have found some articles at various points around the Red Sea, notably around Aqabah if I recall correctly. But I'm not sure what has ever come of this -- if anything.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 08:10 AMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 08:12 AM

Did you even read what I just said? Because you're not actually reading my posts -- except for the "tiny little sections" that apparently catch your attention long enough for you to reply.For example, I already have mentioned the Hinduism aspect.Requoted for your perusal from my previous post. Consequently, Buddhism arose from an existing Hinduism culture, and inevitably many elements of other contemporary traditions are found in Buddhism. In the same sense one could argue that Christianity would be an offshoot of (or protest to) Judaism and Islam is an offshoot of (or protest to) Christianity...Since the Buddha is considered by many Hindus (not by Buddhists themselves) to be one of the Avatars, Hinduism and Buddhism will probably always remain quite interlinked.What are you not understanding here?I'm not saying there aren't other religions in the world -- of course there are.What I'm saying is that the common evolutionary assumption of monotheism evolving from polytheism is not always accurate. In many instances it is simply wrong because there are many examples in man's early history where some kind of "primitive monotheism" or "Sky God" is present.Consequently, although the details differ, these "Pritimive Sky Gods" all seem to basically have the following characteristics: Look to the most ancient religious books in the world -- or even the most recently discovered primitive cultures -- they all have a common theme in them.First, many of the peoples which had been thought to have no concept of religion at all were discovered instead to embrace belief in a single, all powerful deity. In fact, such peoples actually had a sophisticated religion, but it simply lacked public rituals. The theology in such cases was esoteric and in general it was something that was not to be spoken of to outsiders. Many reports, therefore, of primitive religions, had been limited to the observation of the external details of cult practice, but the existence of the High God challenged the adequacy of such reports and suggested that, in many cases, if the observer himself had not been "initiated" his report was not to be trusted.Secondly, and of even greater significance, the discovery of the High God concept among primitive peoples challenged the popular 19th century theory of the evolution of religion from animism (belief in souls in humans and other aspects of nature) to polytheism to monotheism. Instead, a devolutionary approach seemed to be the more reasonable.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 09:13 AM